ClockNext: get plan

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds meaningful context about the response contents ('full' plan with entitlement components, billing cycle, currency, active state), which goes beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., missing ID) or other edge cases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence efficiently conveys the action and scope. The em-dash list of components is concise and structured, with no redundant words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description still lists the return fields (entitlement components, billing cycle, currency, active state), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It is complete for a simple get-by-id tool, though it omits error case details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% — the only parameter 'id' is described as 'The plan id.' The description merely repeats 'by id' without adding additional semantics, so it matches the baseline for comprehensive schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one plan') with clear scope ('in full'). It itemizes the components (wallet/credit/outcome/unit/flat, billing cycle, currency, active state), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_plans or create_plan.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use for retrieving a single plan by ID, but does not explicitly contrast with list_plans (for multiple plans) or get_customer_plan (for a customer's plan). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.